At the state level, yes, I agree with you. But I think an argument can be made that anyone not paying Federal income tax shouldn’t cast a vote in the national election. I say this tongue in cheek of course, because I know that will never happen. But, this is all in the context of how much more do we want the wealthy to pay for before it constitutes “enough?”
Remember, the wealthy also pay the vast majority of state, property, investment, excise, transfer, municipal, and sales tax as well. As I asked earlier, is 45.8% not enough for you? Do we go to 55.8%? 65.8%? Have you ever risked capital, created a job, paid an income (and payroll taxes), and, do you give at least 10% of your income away to charitable causes? If no, why not? You do realize that tax is just a reallocation of money, quite possibly to a much less productive use in the economy???
“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”
what are percentages paid by different groups into SS and Medicare taxes? you act like people dont pay those. There are more taxes than income. Also, just because you are a high earner and have a business doesn’t make you more American than the people that work for you. You are not special when it comes to which rights apply to and how to express them. It might be bad economics to soak the rich but it’s also bad economics to soak the poor.
I mean, keep in mind that if the cap on soc sec is raised or eliminated, then you are talking about a very, very progressive tax terms of percentage of income paid in relative to distributions paid out if you don’t also raise the distribution amounts and keep it standardized. I just think it’s a poor concept. There are lots of ways to save it, besides just increasing the tax, though that should be part of it.
what are percentages paid by different groups into SS and Medicare taxes? you act like people dont pay those. There are more taxes than income. Also, just because you are a high earner and have a business doesn’t make you more American than the people that work for you. You are not special when it comes to which rights apply to and how to express them. It might be bad economics to soak the rich but it’s also bad economics to soak the poor.
Ok, but are we really talking about “soaking the poor?” I mean, come on now. Look, I’m open to many ideas and changes in the tax (and tax and spend) system. Whatever it is. Consumption oriented tax exempting the necessities of living, means tested perhaps, maybe higher taxes on income but less on investment (or vice versa), expanding the base for entitlement taxes (as well as other ideas mentioned here)? Sure. Let’s look at it. All of it. But to propose that all and everywhere the wealthy aren’t paying their “fair share” and the only solution is to raise taxes on the top 1% (or tax unrealized capital gains 😂🤦♂️) without commensurate spending cuts is honestly sophomoric. Estate taxes where that money isn’t actually earned? Well, you may have a point there.
Of course there are taxes beyond income tax, but the top 1% and 10% still bear the much bigger burden. And they are generally the biggest “investors” in the economy, which helps everyone, so let’s not demonize them.
Class warfare and racial division are the bread and butter of the modern Democrat party and the logic or effectiveness of the policy is irrelevant.
Everyone knows the only reason the Mark Zuckerbergs are a billionaires and the people who have multiple kids out of wedlock in high school are broke is because the system rewards the rich and punishes the poor.
If the playing field was fair people could have 6 kids from 6 different men before they're 30 and still be able to afford $1000 "Tax the Rich" dresses and go to the Met gala with AOC.
Hey, for all you downvoters, do you have the courage to come back on here and point out exactly what Vivek said that was erroneous? Are you just upset with the obnoxious and hard truth of the message? Don’t you want to “turn the page?” Especially on 9/11?
They're taking over Springfield. It is a disaster for the Simpsons, a beautiful American family. Apu was sent to the US from prison to do terrorist acts. Quickee Mart? More like Quickee Death! Who knows what's in those "hot dogs". The Slushees are coming for your children! Shameful.
It's over Trumpanzees, your dear leader is toast. The party that calls people "soy boys" and Beta males saw their big bad leader cower like a dog that doesn't want to get spanked with a newspaper. He could not even look at her he was so terrified. He didn't want to shake her hand because.. I don't know... cooties? What a pu$$y. And the best part is that another woman will finish him off by energizing young women to vote. And when I say energize, I mean is Yuuuuuuuge numbers.
It wasn't a knock out punch, but Harris walks away from the debate looking young, confident, and cool headed. Trump looked like an angry old man exaggerating everything as either the best or worst thing in American history.
It is unlikely that Trump will agree to another debate.
Yes, if you raise the retirement age from 67 to 68 or higher, that means you are reducing access for people who are 67.
When I critiqued your proposal, I said, "good luck with that." The reason I said that is it's an extremely unpopular proposal. Nearly 80% of Americans are against raising the retirement age.
Ok, let's be clear. First you tried to do what you think was denigrating me by calling me a bot and/or accusing me of having AI write my retorts. Moreover, if you looked at the very first rebuttal where raising the base of taxation for social security was suggested (as the only option), I said, basically, ok fine, as long as we explore other avenues too like raising the age of eligibility, indexing it to a different yardstick for inflation (does it ever go down during a recession?), or even allowing that it be invested in a really safe basket of low risk but higher return investments than just government IOUs (and, yes, the government would have to have a hand in this).
Now your argument is one of political will. I'm not in disagreement. The problem is, social security was never meant to be a replacement for "retirement," and, when it was first implemented, people weren't living nearly as long and there were far more payors for every payee. So, it is on the verge of being insolvent. If you dial back 50 years and see how many people were receiving the benefit, and fast forward to a scenario where we merely raise the eligibility age by three months (or a month), are we really reducing access just in terms of the sheer number of people receiving the benefit? An actuarial should look at this hypothetical. Monkeys Skyping?
The answer, of course, is to do everything, but, Joe Biden, in one of his last and only coherent SOTUs called out the Republicans very publicly to promise not to touch entitlements, not make one iota of change. And that was disingenuous and extremely untenable, and, frankly, dangerous. But, you see, most voters aren't economically savvy or financially literate. Their news is Joy Behar and Oprah, and they think platitudes like "let's turn the page" and "nevermind what I didn't do for the last three years as an elected VP, but here's what I'm going to do now" are compelling policy statements.
At the state level, yes, I agree with you. But I think an argument can be made that anyone not paying Federal income tax shouldn’t cast a vote in the national election. I say this tongue in cheek of course, because I know that will never happen. But, this is all in the context of how much more do we want the wealthy to pay for before it constitutes “enough?”
Remember, the wealthy also pay the vast majority of state, property, investment, excise, transfer, municipal, and sales tax as well. As I asked earlier, is 45.8% not enough for you? Do we go to 55.8%? 65.8%? Have you ever risked capital, created a job, paid an income (and payroll taxes), and, do you give at least 10% of your income away to charitable causes? If no, why not? You do realize that tax is just a reallocation of money, quite possibly to a much less productive use in the economy???
“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”
what are percentages paid by different groups into SS and Medicare taxes? you act like people dont pay those. There are more taxes than income. Also, just because you are a high earner and have a business doesn’t make you more American than the people that work for you. You are not special when it comes to which rights apply to and how to express them. It might be bad economics to soak the rich but it’s also bad economics to soak the poor.
Just curious, do you think this dynamic is sustainable? Furthermore, do you think it is easily resolved by simply “raising taxes?” Serious question. Nevermind the source, they are pretty good on breaking this stuff down on the market. Most people don’t understand the gravity of this. But global central banks stocking up on gold as a reserve currency hedge do…
what are percentages paid by different groups into SS and Medicare taxes? you act like people dont pay those. There are more taxes than income. Also, just because you are a high earner and have a business doesn’t make you more American than the people that work for you. You are not special when it comes to which rights apply to and how to express them. It might be bad economics to soak the rich but it’s also bad economics to soak the poor.
Just curious, do you think this dynamic is sustainable? Furthermore, do you think it is easily resolved by simply “raising taxes?” Serious question. Nevermind the source, they are pretty good on breaking this stuff down on the market. Most people don’t understand the gravity of this. But global central banks stocking up on gold as a reserve currency hedge do…
I'm not the poster you're responding to but you've been going on about how progressive the tax system should be or broadly "How does the government raise money through taxation?" and pivot to national debt when challenged without engaging the poster's points.
The two are connected, of course, in the sense that debt is revenue minus expenses, but they're not very connected to the issue of the degree of progression in the tax code.
Your argument seems muddled.
Regarding referencing "zerohedge", propaganda isn't necessarily false information. Propaganda it's more often factual information presented selectively, that is, lacking context or contrary factual information. Zerohedge is notorious for doing this so it's hardly unfair to dismiss people citing it as a source as likely poor sources of credibly objective viewpoints.
If you want to be taken seriously, consider acting serious.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Instead of raising the age for Social Security, they should be lowering it. Drop the age to 65 and raise the maximum amount of earnings subject to SS tax. It's only $168k now. That's too low.
In addition, they should pass a buy-in for Medicare at age 55.
Both of these actions would help middle aged and older folks get to retirement without having to work into their 70s. Shuffling them along would create more job opportunities for younger folks to move up the ladder.
Not certain why you continue to put words in my mouth. At no point did I ever refer to any of those referenced by you as "far left." Par for the course, I guess.
To compare Biden's governance to that of Clinton is laughable; to suggest Kamala would govern in a Clinton-esque fashion is even moreso. Frankly, if her policies resembled anything near Clinton's, I would be actively supporting her campaign.
Are you not aware that Clinton was one of the first big name people to endorse Kamala after Biden stepped down? Did you miss Clinton's speech supporting Kamala at the DNC?
Just curious, do you think this dynamic is sustainable? Furthermore, do you think it is easily resolved by simply “raising taxes?” Serious question. Nevermind the source, they are pretty good on breaking this stuff down on the market. Most people don’t understand the gravity of this. But global central banks stocking up on gold as a reserve currency hedge do…
I'm not the poster you're responding to but you've been going on about how progressive the tax system should be or broadly "How does the government raise money through taxation?" and pivot to national debt when challenged without engaging the poster's points.
The two are connected, of course, in the sense that debt is revenue minus expenses, but they're not very connected to the issue of the degree of progression in the tax code.
Your argument seems muddled.
Regarding referencing "zerohedge", propaganda isn't necessarily false information. Propaganda it's more often factual information presented selectively, that is, lacking context or contrary factual information. Zerohedge is notorious for doing this so it's hardly unfair to dismiss people citing it as a source as likely poor sources of credibly objective viewpoints.
If you want to be taken seriously, consider acting serious.
Actually, I have addressed all of his talking points with all the dialogue as we’ve gone along. The solutions proposed by him and seemingly everyone else is that we need to raise taxes. Make the rich pay their “fair share.” It sells politically, when, in reality, you could tax all of the billionaires in America at 95% and hardly make a dent in the debt. So, not only is it a disingenuous talking point without also considering vastly reducing government spending as well to get on a sustainable trajectory, it also takes productive capital out of the economy that, arguably, is then deployed less productively. I mean, what was the share of government and quasi-government (GSEs, USPS, etc) as a percentage of GDP in 1924 versus now?
Zerohedge is propaganda when it comes to political diatribe, I agree. But when it comes to market analysis, they are generally way ahead of the curve and good at predicting what should be obvious (like employment being revised downward). I include it, because they present a lot of good charts that people can at least look at and try to understand the implications. Also, ZeroHedge isn’t a person or two-man editorial board. It’s a collection analysts, all posting under the pseudonym Tyler Durden. You can choose not to take me seriously, that’s fine.
As I said, the people get the politicians they deserve. Incredible how each “side” sees the other as the real existential threat to Democracy. But the debt is on an unsustainable path, and, eventually there will be a reckoning. We have bought almost all the growth of the past four years with debt.
Current betting odds have moved strongly in her favor:
as of 8:00 AM 9/11: Harris: 51.6% Trump: 47.3%
They were essentially reversed in the hours before the debate. Complete reversal.
I don't think anyone foresaw such a complete dominance by Harris. Do not underestimate that lady. She wins a LOT of elections. Only one she ever lost was the pres primary.
She only won the California attorney general election in 2010 by 1%. Foreshadowing...
Current betting odds have moved strongly in her favor:
as of 8:00 AM 9/11: Harris: 51.6% Trump: 47.3%
They were essentially reversed in the hours before the debate. Complete reversal.
I don't think anyone foresaw such a complete dominance by Harris. Do not underestimate that lady. She wins a LOT of elections. Only one she ever lost was the pres primary.
She only won the California attorney general election in 2010 by 1%. Foreshadowing...
The all out media applauding of Harris actually led some misjudgment from her campaign. Harris thought attacking Trump alone would be enough to win the bid. Wrong. Not that easy. When she couldn’t think of a single policy that she could do differently from Biden, that’s on her. Try harder next time.
It's over Trumpanzees, your dear leader is toast. The party that calls people "soy boys" and Beta males saw their big bad leader cower like a dog that doesn't want to get spanked with a newspaper. He could not even look at her he was so terrified. He didn't want to shake her hand because.. I don't know... cooties? What a pu$y. And the best part is that another woman will finish him off by energizing young women to vote. And when I say energize, I mean is Yuuuuuuuge numbers.
